Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fez

Evolution

Recommended Posts

Guest

Assumptions will kill you every time.

Amen~!

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 1 John 2:22-26

Dead Men Walking

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:11-15

Dead Men

He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.

He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.

For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:31-36

Talking

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(a-c)

Hum....

For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. Luke 9:26

~

Believe

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:10-12

And Be Blessed Beloved

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 12:3

Love, Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the question of why evangelicals tend to reject evolution, I would say that it is mainly due to the idea of scriptural literalism in Genesis being taken too far. Protestants in particular seem to have a problem with accepting the idea that Genesis is allegorical and poetic in its first few chapters (something that was recognized by a majority of the church fathers). I believe that this has its roots in the rejection of the early church fathers and the growth of biblical literalism in the fundamentalist movements in the 18th and 19th centuries.

I would respectfully disagree. People of all walks are realizing that the science required to support Darwinism is not there. Most of those hundreds of PhD scientists who reject much of Darwinism are not 'literalists' and some are not even theists. Darwinism is dependent on philosophy passed off as science to keep it afloat. It is the atheistic version of the creation myth that some Christians try to blend with the Genesis account - a feat that cannot be done.

You missed the point. I agree that scientific criticism does exist and I am happy to listen to it. Granted that criticism is about 1% of the entire scientific community but it is interesting to hear alternatives. I am merely saying that the rise of biblical literalism and fundamentalism contributed to a growth in the number of people who believed in a literal 6-day creation account which was previously a minority in the Christian theological community.

I think it is the false dichotomy that makes people run to literalism.

Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative - always has been.

Hmm... I would contend that a lot of early Christians would disagree with you. Augustine, Philo, Origen, Irenaeus just to name a few. The only early Christian I know to have supported literalism is St. Basil. So I don't think that the argument that it always has been a historical narrative would be valid.

The Bible interprets itself--Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative. Do you disagree and if you do - why?

The bible is by definition a collection of writings. Humans interpret it using the Holy Spirit. The bible by itself (and by that I mean the words on the page not the Word) cannot interpret itself. Only by using the Holy Spirit can we interpret the Bible and learn from the Word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm... I would contend that a lot of early Christians would disagree with you. Augustine, Philo, Origen, Irenaeus just to name a few. The only early Christian I know to have supported literalism is St. Basil.

I am not sure where you are getting your info but Augustine was not on your side regarding the age of the earth, a literal Adam or a universal flood as presented in the historical record of Genesis. I would suggest you read his, De Genesi ad litteram (On the necessity of taking Genesis literally). Again, Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative straight from the revelation of God. You certainly have not proven otherwise.

Excellent try but you obviously haven't read his book. The book title means On the Literal Meaning of Genesis not "On the necessity of taking Genesis literally." In this case, it does not mean literal in the sense that it was a literal six days as one can clearly see by reading his material. Here is a bit about it from Geo-Christian a site associated with the American Scientific Affiliation, the Affiliation of Christian Geologists and the Geological Society of America:

  • Augustine, even though his work was entitled The Literal Meaning of Genesis, does not read Genesis 1 in the same “literal” way that modern young-Earth creationists do. Augustine believed that the creation was an instantaneous event rather than being spread out over six literal days, and that the six days of Genesis 1 were a literary structure rather than a statement of the order or timing of events. This is a remarkable insight from a deep thinker, who was in no way influenced by modern understandings of the age of the universe. This also should remind us that modern interpretations that understand Genesis as not requiring a 6000-year old Earth are not just forcing a modern interpretation on the text. Instead, the idea that Genesis doesn’t tell us how old the Earth is could be something that flows out of the text.
  • Augustine believed that non-Christians were perfectly capable of understanding the world, and he was convinced that whatever the Bible teaches, it won’t contradict the world as it really is.
  • Augustine came down hard on Christians who said things that the “scientists” of his day knew were foolish. This applies to us today as well: how will the world believe the Bible when it speaks about salvation if we also try to convince them that the Bible requires belief in dinosaurs living with humans, all the sedimentary rocks being deposited in Noah’s Flood six thousand years ago, or that all evidence of human prehistory can be compressed into less than a thousand years. These are all things taught as dogma by some Evangelicals, but none of them are explicitly taught in Scripture. And the world laughs, not only at us, but at the Creator.

http://geochristian....ing-of-genesis/

Augustine also comments in City of God (Ch 6) that the meaning of the word day is vague: "For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!"

Origen of Alexandria furthers this idea in De Principis: "And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The bible is by definition a collection of writings. Humans interpret it using the Holy Spirit. The bible by itself (and by that I mean the words on the page not the Word) cannot interpret itself. Only by using the Holy Spirit can we interpret the Bible and learn from the Word.

I would say that we need to use context and other resources as well. To be able to interpret scripture from just using the Holy Spirit is more of a spiritual gift and not everybody has that gift. Which is why exegeticals are important and commentary as well.

God

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:26

The Holy Spirit

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16

Is (In Your Church) Not Able?

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 John 2:27

Ever Think It's Better To Move On Dear One

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:1-4

Than To Allow Evil Men To Snatch The Truth Out Of Your Heart?

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

~

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Love, Joe

~

Set a watch, O LORD, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips. Psalms 141:3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent try but you obviously haven't read his book. The book title means On the Literal Meaning of Genesis not "On the necessity of taking Genesis literally."

<sigh>

Your research is lacking. I will go with the scholastic interpretation, On the necessity of taking Genesis literally. Augustine believed the Earth was created about 8000 years ago - much too young for the billions of years required by your version of Darwinism. Again, Augustine was not on your side as you could easily see if you studied a bit harder. His mature view said "farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible". The Bible is also not on your side. Where does that leave you?

Augustine wrote in
De Civitate Dei
that his view of the chronology of the world and the Bible led him to believe that Creation took place around 5600 BC…As Augustine became older, he gave greater emphasis to the underlying historicity and necessity of a literal interpretation of Scripture. His most important work is
De Genesi ad litteram.
The title says it:
On the necessity of taking Genesis literally
. In this later work of his, Augustine says farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible.
~
Benno Zuiddam

Benno Zuiddam
D.Th. (Church History) Ph.D. (Greek) studied at four universities in Europe and South Africa. He is research professor (extraordinary associate) for New Testament Studies with the Department of Biblical Studies and Ancient Languages at the Faculty of Theology of North West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. He also serves with Greenwich School of Theology (UK) as tutor for Ph.D. projects and as a minister with the Presbyterian Church of Australia. Prof. Zuiddam has published in about 10 different peer-reviewed classical and theological journals, and also authored an in-depth study on the authority of the Scriptures in the Early Church.

A clever ploy to attempt to divert the conversation from Genesis literalism to how old Augustine believed the earth to be. Augustine had no access to modern plate geology, modern cosmology, etc so he put the age of the earth at 8000 years since he knows no better. Note, that this 8000 years is still over the estimate given by young earth creationists who claim it to be about 6000 years old. I will not blame Augustine for making guesses towards the age of the earth but saying that this means he turned away from his writings regarding a figurative Genesis is faulty logic.

Please note that even in the City of God he mentions that the literal days in Genesis are inadequate (see the Ch 6 reference I put in my previous post)

So in no way does he step away from his words in the Literal Meaning of Genesis. He maintains and I would stand by him that Christians should regard the early chapters of Genesis as non-historical in nature.

As he says: "It happens that the even a non-Christian knows some things about the earth, the heavens, and other elements of this kind, about the motion and rotation , size and intervals of the stars, about the eclipses of the sun and moon, about the orbits of years and times, about the animals, crops, jewels, and other things of this kind in a such a way that he holds these by a most certain reason and evidence. But it is a disgraceful and deadly thing — and one most certainly to the avoided — that an unbeliever would hear a Christian speaking about these things as if expounding Christian writings in some delirious manner so that by seeing him wrong about all of heaven, he could scarcely keep from laughing. And it is not so annoying that such a Christian errs but that those outside believed our authors (of the Scriptures) were in fact saying such things."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a separate note could you cite where exactly Zuiddam claims to see Augustine turning away from his earlier view. Exactly what passages clue him into this insight when a variety of other scholars I have read make no mention of it. I have also read most of the City of God and the Literal Meaning of Genesis as well as Augustine's Confessions and see nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A clever ploy to attempt to divert the conversation from Genesis literalism to how old Augustine believed the earth to be. Augustine had no access to modern plate geology, modern cosmology, etc so he put the age of the earth at 8000 years since he knows no better.

LOL - you still miss the point my friend. Augustine believed the Earth was created about 5600 BC - much too young to fit your version of Darwinism and he based his date squarely on the Bible. Any way you wish to spin your tale - Augustine was not on your side (you simply thought he was) and in his mature view he said "farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible". Maybe your should take his advice and turn back to God's word --oops you can't do that and remain true to your creation myth based on the naturalism of evolutionism. :mgcheerful:

Too young to fit into Darwinian evolution to be sure but as I mentioned, this is due to Augustine's lack of scientific data. As Augustine clearly states in The Literal Meaning of Genesis through the various quotes I have provided, the literal interpretation of Genesis as taken by fundamentalists today makes no sense to him. As he states some passages make no sense taken literally:

But before the appearance of the sun, in what sort of cycle could three days and nights have passed in succession? Even if there existed the light which was first created, and even if we assume that it was a corporeal light, it is difficult to discover any solution to propose for this problem. Perhaps one might say that God gave the name “darkness” to the mass of earth and water which were still not separated one from the other (a thing which is said to have happened on the third day), in view of the dense bodily mass of the earth and water, which light could not have penetrated, or in view of the dark shade of the huge bulk. Now there must be such a shade on one side of a body if there is light on the other. Where part of a body cannot be reached by light, because the mass of the body obstructs it, in that part there is shade; for a place deprived of light which would illuminate it if it were not for a body that obstructs the light, fulfills exactly the definition of shade. If this shade, because of the size of the massive body, is large enough to cover a space of the earth equal to that covered by daylight on the other side, it is then called “night.” Not all darkness is night. There is darkness also in large caves in which light cannot penetrate the inner recesses because of the solid mass that obstructs it. In such places there is no light, and all the area is unlighted, but we do not call this darkness “night.” This word we reserve for the darkness that comes to that part of the earth from which day has departed. Similarly, not all light is called “day”; there is the light of the moon, of the stars, of lamps, of lightning, and of all such objects that shine. But that light is called “day” which precedes the night and withdraws when night comes on...Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

St. Augustine The Literal Meaning of Genesis

Augustine uses some pretty harsh words at the end of this statement so either he enjoys contradicting himself in the same book or your claims and those of Zuiddam are far fetched and rely merely on Augustine's lack of scientific data rather than his theological position.

His date being based squarely on the bible? As from what I've heard from my Young Earth Creationist friends, the earth should only be about 6000 years old if you account for the ages of the people in the Bible. Could be wrong of course. I haven't looked into the YEC community for a bit so they could have revised it.

On a separate note could you cite where exactly Zuiddam claims to see Augustine turning away from his earlier view. Exactly what passages clue him into this insight when a variety of other scholars I have read make no mention of it. I have also read most of the City of God and the Literal Meaning of Genesis as well as Augustine's Confessions and see nothing.

As noted earlier - per Benno Zuiddam, the answer is to be found in Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram (On the necessity of taking Genesis literally).

Interesting... seeing as I've read at least most of The Literal Meaning of Genesis by Augustine. Perhaps a chapter or section I could look into or the paper by Zuiddam so I could offer some remarks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the point. I agree that scientific criticism does exist and I am happy to listen to it. Granted that criticism is about 1% of the entire scientific community but it is interesting to hear alternatives.

That is the point - many scientists reject parts of Darwinism because it cannot be supported via science. And why do you think we see hundreds of PhD scientists rejecting neo-Darwinism? We do not see them signing a document against Cell Theory. Why Darwinism?

An article related to this which states that the majority of those scientists who oppose evolution have no biological science background.

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

Wow, many, even hundreds! We're ripe for a revolution in the sciences.

So let's use 500 scientists, what percentage does that make it

if 10 million scientists .005

if 5 million scientists .01

Let's look at this the other way,

If 10 million scientists, 99.995% support evolution.

If 5 million scientists, 99.99% support evolution

It's a good thing you don't have a tendency to misrepresent information or make far reaching conclusions... oh, but you do...

The Discovery Institute says 128 signers hold degrees in the biological sciences and 26 in biochemistry. That leaves more than 350 nonbiologists, including Dr. Tour, Dr. Picard and Dr. Skell.

Of the 128 biologists who signed, few conduct research that would directly address the question of what shaped the history of life.

So let's re-do numbers with 128 biologists

If 10 million scientists, then 0.00127

If 5 million scientists, then .0025

Wow, this is overwhelming support.

If 10 million scientists, 99.999% support evolution.

If 5 million scientists, 99.998% support evolution

The opposition is not scientific opposition, it seems they find faith more persuasive.

Random quotes which debunk your far-reaching conclusion that opposition to evolution is because science doesn't support it.

"I think there's a lot of problems with evolutionary dogma," said Dr. Brewer, who also does not accept the scientific consensus that the universe is billions of years old. "Scientifically, I think there are other possibilities, one of which would be intelligent design. Based on faith, I do believe in the creation account."

Dr. Tour, who developed the "nano-car" — a single molecule in the shape of a car, with four rolling wheels — said he remained open-minded about evolution.

"I respect that work," said Dr. Tour, who describes himself as a Messianic Jew, one who also believes in Christ as the Messiah.

But he said his experience in chemistry and nanotechnology had showed him how hard it was to maneuver atoms and molecules. He found it hard to believe, he said, that nature was able to produce the machinery of cells through random processes. The explanations offered by evolution, he said, are incomplete

Scott R. Fulton, a professor of mathematics and computer science at Clarkson University in Potsdam, N.Y., who signed the petition, said that the argument for intelligent design was "very interesting and promising."

I have an in-law with a science degree in microbiology who is anti-evolution. The curious thing is that he couldn't define what evolution is. Imagine that a scientist who is opposed to something which he has no understanding of; except the caricature that has been force fed by his theology.

His arguments are your typical fallacious arguments with no scientific basis - oh the irony.

Some of which you are intimately familiar with:

Arguments from authority

Arguments from ignorance

Arguements from incredulity

Circular reasoning

Arguments from popularity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have an in-law with a science degree in microbiology who is anti-evolution. The curious thing is that he couldn't define what evolution is. Imagine that a scientist who is opposed to something which he has no understanding of; except the caricature that has been force fed by his theology.

Pagan Materialism Floods The Thoughts Of (So Called) Men Of Knowledge (Science)

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9

Yet Few Will Call It

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

Sin

Of sin, because they believe not on me; John 16:9

See?

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

~

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The corporeal exist without Life- "Is this all there is" reflects the lack of continuance yet

continuance is the only place where hope could spawn from... hope cannot contain cessation for

obvious reasons yet all who deny God have hope in end! The lie is so evident in them as their gods

are without continuance and hope is in ending... they are to be pitied above all else for they proclaim

a hopeless, godless end and that is exactly what they receive hell... and the torture of the place is the

absence of God Who alone generates -

Gal 5:22-23

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law

NKJV

Love, Steven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×